Counterculture, Feminism, MGTOW, Sexuality

Consent – Part Three

Leave a comment

One has to admire the directness of purpose and absence of ambiguity in the animal world. Instinct, not reason, determines collective behavior. In generalized terms, males appear to be wired for disposability as an evolutionary survival strategy, although it typically manifests in unique and myriad forms. This phenomenon is nowhere more graphically illustrated than the scorpion love nest pictured above. The male scorpion enters the female’s nest to fertilize her eggs. The next morning, both are still there, but they’ve merged—not in an idealized romantic sense, of course. The male has been consumed by the female and now occupies her digestive tract, providing resources, one presumes, for the incipient offspring. After all, the male has dutifully deposited his sperm and no longer serves a purpose in procreation.

A wag wryly observed that human females also consume their mates, but prefer to extract resources in a measured way over a longer period of time, so as not to degrade the utility of their service animals—but I digress.

Humans are the only self-replicating life form known to us that superimpose self-awareness as an overlay to existence. We have opinions about things, and in the process make stuff up about right and wrong; good and bad. These ‘moral’ underpinnings wax and wane with each shift in the Zeitgeist, but I would be hard-pressed to imagine a more out-of-balance social compact than the specter of our contemporary Western culture careering towards certain disaster, fueled by the advent of cultural Marxism in its alliance with Second and Third Wave Feminism.

I’ve watched it unfold over more than six decades. I’m a witness to the destruction it has wrought.

Authority Without Responsibility

In my first post on consent, I referenced Robert Briffault, who observed that the female of the species makes all reproductive choices, and that no action is taken that does not comport with female prerogatives. I also spoke of the rise of the Counterculture in the mid-1960s, and how the birth-control pill as well as effective antibiotics against known STDs stripped away the need for women to be chaste and demure—they no longer even had to pretend to be virtuous. At the dawn of my dating life in the 1950s, women did the choosing as they always have, but were discreet and circumspect in their machinations. The implications were much harsher for out-of-wedlock pregnancies, in most cases sullying a woman’s reputation and severely limiting her societal options. In those days women had no choice but to assume responsibility for their actions.

How times have changed! By the time abortion-on-demand came about in the mid-1970s along with universal no-fault divorce laws, there were no significant negative consequences to a woman’s sexual, marital or reproductive decisions. But the real coup de grâce was delivered by Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn when they enlisted the burgeoning Second Wave Feminism movement in the service of Marxism, as laid out in their Prairie Fire manifesto published in 1974—a year after Roe v. Wade. Crusaders like Susan Brownmiller took up the mantle. The road to perdition was soon scripturally mapped out for its mindless acolytes.

Little by little, with the women’s vote augmented by well-meaning male feminists and pandering politicians, centuries of jurisprudence began to crumble from the onslaught of victim culture. With the ‘discovery’ of mythical notions like “patriarchy”, “toxic masculinity”, “rape culture” (the list goes on ad nauseam), a scientific heritage spanning millenniums is being transposed by pseudo science masquerading as intellectual rigor. And psychology, once respected, is being irredeemably degraded by feminized therapeutic modalities guaranteeing blamelessness for women’s behaviors, no matter how egregious. I’ve written in the past about the Spanish gender laws that have spawned special kangaroo courts whose only purpose is to find men guilty, and I’ve recently become aware of incipient changes in Canadian law that would prevent a man from offering evidence of his innocence in court proceedings. There are so many similar examples, citing them quickly devolves into an exercise in redundancy.

The Salem Bitch Trials

And in this time we are enjoined to endure the #MeToo bitch hunt as it invents or magnifies incidents from decades past with the screeching demand that any and all accusations, no matter how specious or improbable, must be believed. Men’s careers and reputations are destroyed without due process, but as one prominent feminist put it, the incidence of false sexual assault accusations are so insignificant (2% in feminist mythology; as much as 47% in rigorous studies by non-ideologues), that the occasional man (nearly half of them?), that are unjustly destroyed in the process are, in her words, “a price I’m willing to pay”. One has to admire the magnanimity and sacrifice of pedestal-mounted moral paragons willing to throw a man’s life away in the service of their delusions.

Now there is concern that there is already evidence of pushback to the #MeToo movement, as prominent men include chaperones in one-on-one meetings with women; and, men in business and the professions are avoiding contact with their female co-workers, to the point of withholding mentorship from female team members. Of course, women’s concern has nothing to do with the intrinsic unfairness of their crusade, only that their intent “to make men afraid”, as one feminist writer put it, will diminish their own career opportunities in business and politics—to say nothing of eviscerating yet another avenue for budding romantic relationships.

I closed the doors to my professional practice coincident with the 2008 recession, but if I were still operating my business today, I would immediately cease hiring women, despite that my best employees were women. They simply weren’t that much better to even remotely offset the growing risk/reward imbalance rearing its ugly head in contemporary culture.

Adiós to Consent

Twenty-eight years ago, on the cusp of Third Wave Feminism, I slipped imperceptibly into the embrace of the value system we recognize today as Men Going Their Own Way, or MGTOW. This was more than a decade before the community adopted its acronym, but it was apparent I had unconsciously and irreversibly embraced its core values. Looking back, it’s clear that everything that preceded this transition, every painful lesson learned, prepared me for a genuine rebirth in every sense of the word. Although I continued to date for another dozen years, I eschewed any notion of marriage, cohabitation, or relationships constrained by the kind of 24/7 surveillance to which I had willingly submitted in decades past. Women have continued to ‘choose’ me—even to this day—slipping their telephone numbers into my pocket at night clubs or signalling their availability in other ways. Simply put, I refuse to consent.

Why any man continues to endure the predation of petulant children speaks to powerful imperatives wired into the species, and from my observations, differences as to how men and women love. Men’s love tends to be unconditional; women’s love is conditioned on whether a particular outcome is achieved, and is invariably redirected once a better deal happens along. Feminism’s unholy alliance with the Regressive Left, harnessing the monopoly on violence held by the state to destroy men in law and social contract, is the ultimate desecration of that love. There will be a price to pay, perhaps not by the radical lesbian feminists directing the cult, but by the millions of women, content to benefit from societal conditions that advantage them over men, when those men abandon their desire to sacrifice by shunning women and refusing to help or protect them. Evidence of that is already apparent in Germany and Sweden. Similarly, evidence that the Salem Bitch Trials have crossed a red line augurs well for the rest of us in the Red Pill community.

Women now hold the reins to all power in the sexual arena, but have totally abdicated responsibility for their actions to underpin their victim narrative. Soon they’ll realize there’s no longer a horse at the business end of those reins—the quintessential Pyrrhic victory.

Feminism, MGTOW, Sexuality

Consent – Part Two

Image Leave a comment
Rights Without Responsibilities

Among the grand lies of our age is preposterous patriarchy theory, defined as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women. The fault-riddled underpinnings upon which much of feminism’s claim to validity is founded abounds with simplisms such as “the sexual partition of society creates organizational restrictions on the actions, efforts, and ambitions of females,” as though it were some evil plot hatched by men and not natural divisions based on biological dimorphism or simple competence in a meritocracy. It peddles the ‘women as victims’ meme ad nauseam with a goal of justifying its cultural deconstruction in law. Even legitimate issues adversely affecting men’s health and well-being are lain at the feet of said straw man patriarchy—predations of feminism couldn’t possibly be a contributing factor—becoming the convenient go-to bogeyman for every imagined sexist and misogynistic injustice brewing in the irrational minds of the misandric harridans that dominate the movement.

After AIDS shut down the Age of Hedonism, which predominated in Western counterculture between 1965 and 1985, damage wrought by two decades of unfettered assault on equity in law in the name of equality was well on its way to unraveling the crucial balance between authority and responsibility, essential to the functioning of any society. Women organized, demanded rights and sock puppet politicians, augmented by burgeoning numbers of women in public office, dutifully pandered to the increasing influence of the women’s vote, without apparently ever examining—or perhaps wilfully dismissing—the predictable outcomes of their ill-considered policies.

Central to this was the right granted to women to kill unborn children simply because they were inconvenient. This feminist rite of passage, afforded all the gravitas of a Girl Scout merit badge, has achieved its apotheosis in a recent boast by feminist Martha Plimpton that she had her “best abortion” at a Seattle Planned Parenthood facility—an unprecedented achievement worthy of the highest accolades! Who knew that the sensuous pleasure derived from snuffing a nascent life could be the subject of a lighthearted competition among the movement’s high priestesses.

Adding insult to injury (or mayhem to murder, if you like), is the formulation into law an absolute dearth of concomitant reproductive rights afforded to men. A man has no say if a woman decides to abort her pregnancy, but is legally enjoined to provide eighteen years of child support if she chooses to carry to term. The man also has no right in law to any role in its upbringing if the woman elects to have the state underwrite her choices—frequently the more lucrative option—in lieu of marrying the biological father. We see the societal disaster this has spawned in single-parent households, overwhelmingly headed by women. We see it in high incarceration rates of young men that were raised without benefit of male counsel and authority. We see it in the tragic rate of suicide among men that have been denied access to their children.

Today men are held criminally responsible for the choices of women in a permanent state of arrested development. In my post on this site entitled Childhood’s Endgame, I referenced Lawrence Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development. Kohlberg himself stated that “girls” infrequently develop beyond Stage 3, characterized by social consensus, tribal affiliation and in-group bias. Since Kohlberg’s time, women’s moral development appears to have regressed to Stages 1 and 2 of his matrix. These fall under the heading of Preconventional Morality, covering the period from childhood to prepubescence, a period of “it’s OK to do it if you don’t get caught”, and a self-interest orientation characterized by a complete dearth of societal perspective and moral responsibility. Among a plethora of examples, how else to explain the forty-plus percentage of provably false sexual assault allegations, according to FBI statistics, coupled with an apparent indifference to wanton destruction wrought in the lives of innocent men. Prevalent among reasons for falsely accusing a man of rape is to conceal dalliance from a jealous boyfriend or angry father.

The deleterious effects of stripping men of authority and gifting it to women without demanding concomitant responsibility correlates perfectly with the sordid state of affairs we’ve inherited from a half century of feminist dystopian dismemberment of equity in law.

Mating Ritual Myths

For even the most experienced among us, whether alpha or beta, nuances of the mating dance are forged in the unforgiving school of hard knocks. By the time I was raising a son of my own, those lessons had been distilled to a few observations grounded in decades of experience.

Success in mating is circumscribed by a simple mantra: The man has to not care whether he succeeds or fails. In that context, representing oneself as something other than the genuine article becomes unnecessary, in fact counterproductive, and women are free to like what they perceive—or not. The woman’s assessment is evident in the moment by observing her eyes, so there is never a need to guess whether she desires to advance the incipient relationship.

Each man is visually attracted by particular physical attributes that resonate with him, be it hair color, breast size, a nice ass, or even the sound of her voice. A man will know unequivocally within thirty seconds whether or not he will ever want to fuck her. If the answer is an honest ‘no’, the woman may be brilliant, charming and even beautiful, but the rule is unyielding. Absent instantaneous desire, there is no scenario that will lead to a successful sexual outcome.

Contrary to popular myth on both sides of the gender aisle, there is no cultural rule that men must face the unnerving specter of rejection during initial contact. As I posited in Part One of this series, it is women that invite a particular candidate with subtle cues. A man will almost certainly be rejected if he makes the fatal mistake of approaching without first receiving the ‘come hither’ signal, particularly if he is overly solicitous, prostrating himself before her, hoping for a few scraps from the mean-spirited table of sexual favors.

Conversely, if a man is patient, observant and self-confident, he commands the prerogative because he can choose to act on the ‘come hither’ signal—or not. In my own dating life, I acted on perhaps one in ten such pheromonal invitations, a rather stark predictor of passive rejection. In at least half such situations, I decided not to pursue anything further. When such a decision is communicated at initiation, disappointment and embarrassment in the woman’s countenance is palpable, even if she does her best to conceal her feelings. She has been the one, after all, that has just been rejected. This is an uncomfortable scenario for a man. Most avoid causing pain in the moment by simply deciding never to call, but this merely defers the realization. It does, however, provide further evidence that it is the man who must consent. His is the active voice; hers the passive.

During the halcyon days of my youth and extending into my mid-forties, these rules were clear. Women chose; men consented to be chosen or not. There was no confusion. It worked, at least for men like me. Various researchers have published studies underscoring one of the perverse variants of the eighty-twenty rule, which posits that the top eighty percent of women aspire to attract the top twenty percent of men—a predilection guaranteeing a high percentage of passive rejection by desirable men. In the animal kingdom, this dynamic also prevails, as the dominant alpha is invited by a disproportionate number of females in the troop, or herd, or whatever. In this ruthless milieu the hapless hopefuls at the bottom of the pecking order receive few or no invitations. In most advanced human societies, this dynamic has been somewhat neutered by social constructs such as arranged marriages and legally enforced monogamy, ironically to the detriment of natural selection. However, such artifacts also serve to foster harmony in the emotionally-driven human social order. For the most part it seemed to have worked for millennia.

Weaponization of Consent

Then along came feminism, another social construct, formulated in the crucible of the Enlightenment, which then gained traction—or spread like a disease, take your pick—during the ensuing two centuries. With the rise of Third Wave Feminism in the late 1980s, as the feminist noose tightened to virtual societal asphyxiation, virulent adherents recognized that the Achilles Heel of masculinity is consent itself. Control consent—which is to say take it away from men—and women are in charge of the entire sexual narrative from beginning to end, not just the prerogative of inviting suitable candidates with whom to couple. It has resulted in the emasculation of Western men to the detriment of society as a whole, ironically including that of women—particularly those still pining for some semblance of marriage and family.

First there was “no means no”, a not unreasonable addendum to the script. Even if a women sends out the ‘come hither’ signal and later changes her mind, the man should be enjoined from proceeding. It happened to me a handful of times, and I was always respectful of the woman’s wishes. If the woman does not want to proceed, it degrades the entire experience anyway, which—in a majority of cases as I detailed in Part One of this series—recognizes that the potential for a satisfying fuck is not all that great to begin with. As I recall, in most such situations I was actually relieved. However, and I also said this in the earlier post, the man has the same right of refusal, which in at least one case I can remember resulted in the woman assaulting me physically. At the time I was studying Karate, so was in no danger, but this does not justify the double standard.

Apparently that wasn’t enough, so “yes means yes” came along, first passed into law in California. Ominously, packaging such a miscarriage of justice into law, then enforcing it with the violence of the state begets an object lesson in stupidity. Grant politicians a vehicle for mining easy votes by pandering to the infantile, and one gets stupid laws. To compound the problem, activists in the judiciary are eager to virtue signal to the sisterhood for approbation. Yes only means yes if the woman says it does, and she can revise history if it suits her vendetta. Even unassailable exculpatory evidence does not protect a man falsely accused of assault. Many men have paid the price. The example that springs to mind is the recent conviction of a Toronto man, Mustafa Uruyar, accused of sexually assaulting the horse-faced Mandy Gray, a woman so singularly unattractive the cat wouldn’t bother to drag her in, convicted in a kangaroo court presided over by the weakest, dumbest judge known to woman, Marvin Zucker. His absurd, rambling opinion, replete with every inanity disgorged by feminist scripture ultimately resulted in a higher court overturning the conviction, but as of this writing, the Crown is still weighing whether to retry the case. Predictably, Ms. Gray has taken center stage and forged a career out of her ‘victimhood’. Burnishing the résumé is after all the point of making false accusations. If the accuser was never assaulted to begin with, ‘re-victimization’, a staple of feminist dogma, carries no actual trauma.

But the coup de grâce came with our unlamented and thankfully out of office Mangina-in-Chief, Barack Obama, who used Title IX as a bludgeon, forcing university administrations to establish kangaroo courts in which women’s accusations are always believed at face value, and accused men have no right of self defense. Men’s careers are ruined, or at least derailed, and the women, forty percent of whom are lying according to FBI statistics, face no penalty in law or social censure for their reprehensible crimes. Again, an example would be the Rutgers case from a few years ago. A man is passed out from drinking, and his girlfriend’s roommate fellates him. Then, to conceal her violation of trust, accuses him of sexual assault. He is expelled from school. Another example would be the trusting fool at Stanford who woke up after a night of drinking with his fingers in the wrong orifice. He was convicted of sexual assault and spent six months in prison. The woman, of course, benefited from cultural hypoagency, and bore no responsibility for her actions. The howls from the feminist-dominated media decrying his “light” sentence could be heard in the far reaches of the galaxy, as they beat their misandric drums with incessant perseveration of rape culture drivel.

Escape from Ideological Inanity

After the breakdown of my third and final marriage in January of 1990, without being conscious of it at the time, and more than a decade before the acronym was coined, I became a Man Going My Own Way (MGTOW). Any man that has been definitively “red-pilled” understands this as a radical transformation, a veritable rewiring of the mind. Metaphorically, it represents a Sisyphean moment: the burden borne for half a lifetime is finally muscled to the ridge top and begins tumbling down the opposite slope, demolishing all illusions in its path. Although I continued to date, never again did I entertain cohabitation, to say nothing of the shackles of marriage. I also no longer tolerated 24/7 surveillance of my life in exchange for access to a woman’s pudenda, recognizing it as laughably inadequate compensation of the loss of liberty and personal sovereignty.

This transformation coincided with the rise of Third Wave Feminism, the final evisceration of true equality as well as the delicate balance of authority and responsibility between the sexes. Feminism rose to oppression status in the name of toddler supremacy, trafficking all manner of ideological nonsense such as intersectionality, seemingly without limit. The doctrine of men as servants, slaves and scapegoats had become enshrined in their migration to cultural Marxism. But I was having none of it. Ironically, the best and brightest, alpha and beta, are escaping the plantation in increasing numbers. We are refusing to participate in the abject servitude and sacrifice expected of men. More ominously for social stability and the birthrate, those of us with the wisdom of a lifetime coupled with leadership skills are inspiring greater numbers of young men with each passing year to adopt the MGTOW peer-to-peer mantle of support, immune to all assaults of denigration and shame. Until runaway slave laws are passed by the Ministry of Feminist Truth, we will continue to proselytize.

Women, availing themselves of unearned privileges wrought by decades of ideological inanity codified into law, remain blithely oblivious to the blindingly obvious. Party on, girls, before angiogenesis supplying the metastasized malignancy becomes starved into remission. Socialism works until others’ money runs out. The public coffers will run dry. Count on it!

 

 

 

 

Counterculture, Feminism, Sexuality

Consent – Part One

Image Leave a comment
Preamble

I came of age immediately after the advent of the pill, and the ensuing twenty-five years—until AIDS spoiled the party—were the halcyon days of low-risk, no commitment sex. Venereal diseases were relatively rare in my social circles, and in any case were readily treatable with antibiotics, as no drug-resistant strains had yet emerged. By the late 1960s, the post-Haight Ashbury Summer of Love phenomenon had eviscerated any lingering stigma or inhibition from my generation and we wasted no time capitalizing on our new-found liberation. Upon graduation, I was already running with the fastest crowd in Chicago, taking full advantage of a cornucopia of hedonistic delights. Not surprisingly in hindsight, women led the charge, wasting no time embracing the freedom from unwanted pregnancy. This was also the time of the Stonewall Riots in New York, which led to a forced societal normalization and decriminalization of homosexuality. While our elders watched in horror, my generation simply refused to be schooled or restrained. We discarded their stifling morality and rewrote the rules as we experienced life—on our own terms, uninhibited and promiscuous to an astonishing degree—literally spawning numerous orgies and multi-partner spontaneous events. The scourge of identity politics was decades in the future; hence, my partners included women of multiple races: White, Black, Asian, Latina. Not during that time nor since have I ever experienced an iota of regret. It was an unabashedly wonderful era. In the process I lost count of how many women I had been with sometime in the early-to-mid-1970s, but I would hazard that by the time the hedonistic party came to an end in the mid-1980s, it might have aggregated to one hundred and twenty over many hundreds of individual encounters. After that time, I added roughly thirty sexual partners for a grand total of approximately one hundred fifty.

What’s the point of this exposé? Simply that it’s a large enough sample size over a long enough time period and in geographically diverse areas of the country, including both coasts, such that I can draw a few conclusions, anecdotal as they may be.

Sexual Assault

Or more accurately, the lack thereof. I’ve been involved with only two women who had genuinely, by clinical definition, been raped. The first, a lovely young woman I had dated in the mid-1980s, some years later was raped and murdered on her way to a drug store one evening, a truly tragic, heartrending event. The second, in the mid-1990s was raped by her boyfriend after a break-up. It was a devastating experience for her. She had her attacker charged, but he was acquitted. The trauma left her unable to initiate or respond to sexual intimacy of any kind. I’ve always been known as a gentle, slow hand, bringing women to a heightened state of arousal long before coitus, but this did not ameliorate the psychological damage she suffered.  After making no headway for fourteen frustrating months, and unable to convince her to seek professional help, I gave up.

Anyway, 2:150 translates to 1.3% — above, as it turns out, the actual incidence of rape according to the FBI (3.2 per 1000, or 0.03%). Notwithstanding that the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that from 2006 to 2101, 65% of sexual assaults went unreported, do the math and the revised figure would be just over 0.05%. Feminist propaganda would have one believe that one in four or one in five women are sexually assaulted in college, but this is a perfect example of a fabricated lie that won’t die or mutate despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because one of the rules of propaganda is to repeat lies ad nauseam on the presumption — probably correct — that they will eventually be accepted as gospel by unquestioning masses. As we know, feminism is a spiritual, some would say Procrustean, movement insulated by unassailable scripture utterly impervious to logic or factual evidence. The study their lie is based on was a designed to ‘prove’ an outcome decided upon in advance, as so many — if not all — of these gender and women’s studies researchers are incentivized to produce in order to legitimize their ideology, achieve elevated status in the sisterhood, and pay the rent. If one defines sexual assault as men approaching women innocently to request a date, or the execrably absurd notion of the ‘toxic’ male gaze, it becomes easy to game any desired result.

It Ain’t All That

The eighty-twenty rule applies here. Fully four fifths of my sexual encounters were eminently forgettable. In that context, even now, decades later, a dim memory occasionally flashes across my consciousness, and I think, “Oh yeah, I did fuck her”. These encounters were a waste of time, money and “bodily fluids”, to borrow a line from the seminal film Doctor Strangelove.

There were numerous reasons for this, including plain old deceit. In around ten percent of these rejects, I would get a woman home and her concealing garments would reveal a roll of fat around her midriff. Priapism is rather essential for a man, and for me that was enough to make a strap-on go limp. Others had more padding than a linebacker. By the time they stripped down they were barely recognizable as female. In one such case, when I zipped up and asked the offender to leave, she assaulted me physically. I literally had to throw her out.

Another automatic rejection occurred—twenty to thirty percent of the time— if a woman did not permit oral sex (not fellatio, women almost universally ‘suck’ at that—pun resolutely intended), but cunnilingus and anilingus. These were not negotiable for me. I had fantasized about this virtually in lockstep with the advent of wet dreams at age eleven. Imposition of such a prohibition absolutely was a boner killer if a woman had a nice ass that I couldn’t visit.

In another ten percent of cases, women had a singularly ugly vagina. Explanation needed here: I am speaking only for myself and my esthetic sensibilities; what repels me unquestionably turns other men on. For me, the only view worth having of a woman’s pudenda is from the rear and below, especially while she is ‘gaping’. Gaping refers to the spreading of the buttocks to reveal the full spectrum of her labia major and perineum, from clitoris to the anus and beyond to the expression of the coccyx, including the surrounding musculature. When the labia minor hangs like a curtain and has the texture of cauliflower, it is for me a turn-off, as is a pronounced perineal raphe, an external extension of the fourchette that appears to crawl into the anus. If women have similar prohibitions, I’ve never heard them expressed. In my experience, women mostly fixate on the length and girth of the erect penis.

Thirty or forty percent of women exhibited what I called ‘halibut’ behavior, referring to the fish that lies on the bottom of the ocean with both eyes on one side of its body. They would sprawl motionless, expecting to be pleasured, but not lift a figurative finger to provide pleasure—or for that matter even express interest as to whether the man experienced anything resembling pleasure.

There were other anomalies, not common, but in the aggregate contributed to my rejection rate. It may be a high rate, but I have no idea how other men felt on these subjects, or if they even had the courage to voice their assessments. For example, I never had a problem with pubic hair until it invaded the area around the anus. I remember one young woman, a reporter with the local newspaper in a downstate city, who had so much fur on her back and buttocks she belonged in a zoo. I couldn’t even find her pudenda in the thickets. There were other issues on that occasion. She claimed not to be a lesbian, but had a roommate that expressed psychotic behavior at our sexual intimacy behind a closed bedroom door. There was something unnerving going on that I really did not care to explore.

So out of the one hundred fifty, that left thirty women even worth being with more than once, and half that number again that satisfied over a longer period of time. Ten percent. Pathetic! I could easily write a book on this topic, but I need to move on with this post.

Addendum: After reading this post, a friend called to boast in jest that my vaunted legendary status was at risk because he could count over two hundred sexual partners in his similarly dissipated youth. I responded with a joke I heard half a century ago, germane to his observation:

An Indian chief called his tribe together late one season and gravely said, I have some good news and some bad news. First the bad news. As we all know, the hunt was poor this year and we only have buffalo shit to eat this winter. The good news is we have lots of buffalo shit.

Seduction Myths

The most common myth is that men seduce women. It’s actually the other way around. It’s not called a siren song for nothing. As any self-possessed alpha male will tell you, no success is possible in mating without a ‘come hither’ look or gesture inviting approach. If it’s not there, the man is wasting his time. The aware man can easily recognize desire in a woman’s eyes. Other signals include a flushing of the skin, a turning of the head to reveal her neck, or her hand caressing her face. I believe—although I have no hard evidence—that women emit a pheromonal signal. It’s not physical in the strict sense of an olfactory trail, but rides on an emotional wave of intent. If the desired man is interested and likes what he sees, this will reel him in like a shiny lure draws a hapless pike.

As social anthropologist Robert Briffault accurately observed, “The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” (The Mothers, Vol. I p. 191) If anyone thinks we as a species have transcended our animal origins, they need merely to observe mating dynamics in the natural world. Take any primate colony, for example, and it becomes clear that the female presents her buttocks in a ‘gaping’ mode to invite a particular male. Generally, the dominant alpha will couple with half the females. Lesser males in the pecking order will fall off quickly, and roughly half the males receive no invitation.

Women initiated the sexual revolution in the 1960s, augmenting a pair bonding dynamic already well established throughout human history. This was unequivocally my experience from the front lines of the counterculture. Although I and many of my male friends were understandably willing ‘stud horses’ for the rapacious sexual appetites of women suddenly released from cultural incarceration, we were never confused as to who ran the show. They chose; we consented. It’s that simple. Patriarchy theory, had it even been voiced by anyone in my extensive sexual circles would have been met with incredulity. Such a ridiculous notion was then and is to this day totally antithetical to men’s actual “lived experience”, to expropriate a phrase from feminist orthodoxy.

The party ended with the specter of AIDS and to a lesser extent, genital herpes, during the lesbian sex wars following Second Wave Feminism. In my circles, we had card-carrying members of sex-positive feminists, and they tended to be sensuous and good-looking, sometimes downright beautiful, in marked contrast to hideous roadkill like Andrea Dworkin, who anchored (literally and figuratively), the anti-pornography opposition. The sex-positive feminists, whom we fully embraced, tended to view the anti-pornography crowd as pushing sexual puritanism, promoting moral authoritarianism and suppressing free speech.

During the ensuing decades, feminism promulgated outright falsehoods and quasi-religious junk science to establish its legitimacy in the academic arena as well as its endless claims to victim status, garnering a disproportionate share of public funds in the process. Serious degradation to equity in law followed, distorting the social contract in favor of women by vilifying all things masculine. This will be the subject of the second part of this exposition. Stay tuned.

 

 

 

Feminism, Globalism, MGTOW, Traditionalism

Childhood’s Endgame

Leave a comment

If fellow males of the species can’t grasp what the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) phenomenon represents, those of us that have embraced this way of being enjoin them not to display their willful ignorance and misguided ‘lifestyle advice’ for us to ridicule. We’re constantly admonished by social justice warriors that our pejorative “mangina” is vulgar and reductive, and that “white knighting” is a positive role that all men should adopt to support the laudable goals of equality between the sexes—ignoring that the deck has become increasingly stacked against men for the last fifty years. Even more absurdly, traditionalists are instructing us to “man up” and submit to the time-honored tradition, honed over millennia, to sacrifice ourselves as disposable utilities for entitled women’s material dreams and social aspirations. We have a pejorative for traditional conservatives as well: We call them “tradcons”.

Ah—thanks, but no thanks!

This is what’s particularly galling to MGTOW. If equality between the sexes is the objective, society quite conversely and definitively needs to undo damage promulgated by decades of lies, damned lies and statistics that have ironically eviscerated equality by pandering to prepubescent tantrums by women, enshrined in law by opportunistic politicians groveling for votes. These have led inexorably to execrable degradation of law and social compact and have all but destroyed once-vibrant cultures in countries like the Commonwealth nations (the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), as well as many European countries, including Sweden and Spain.

It’s a serious malignancy here in the United States as well, particularly in the neo-Marxist higher education archipelago. These virulent tumors, already festering, metastasized in 2011 under the aegis of Title IX, when Barack Obama, our first mangina president, mandated a kangaroo court system legitimating feminism’s egregious lies promoting a myth of rape culture and virtually nonexistent sexual assault. This malignancy found its zenith in the recent Women’s March—the largest mass assembly in history. Along with its cadres of male enablers, its organizers glorified (of all things!) Sharia law, acid attacks and female genital mutilation by proudly wearing hijabs and staging a ridiculous call to prayer. Participants donned stupid pussy hats and vagina costumes to demonize innocuous male behavior by our president—all because their anointed, sickly, corrupt hag-in-a-pants-suit was not able to steal the 2016 election—despite assiduous efforts and criminal complicity of the Deep State.

However, there’s also a strong countermovement here that still values one of the principal, and I would say critical, cornerstones of the American republic, our Constitution. Among other rights, the Founding Fathers enshrined freedom of speech as that which the government cannot abridge without a constitutional amendment, a tortuous process unlikely to succeed. This does not mean they’re not trying, with a corrupt corporate elite introducing net censorship by social media giants in the vain hope that we’ll go back to sleep. In most of the Anglosphere and the European Union, such a patently self-evident right does not exist, and authorities in Britain, Germany and many other nations are silencing legitimate dissent by dispatching the violence of the state. Canada, a country in which I hold citizenship, has passed the equivalence of blasphemy laws, enforcing unconstitutional mandates with arrest, imprisonment and fines. Ontario even has Social Justice Tribunals staffed with misguided ideologues on a ‘sacred’ mission—not anyone actually trained in law.

How did we come to be ruled by the infantile?

A recent video by a fellow American MGTOW philosopher who calls himself Turd Flinging Monkey, introduced me to the work of Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, best known for his theory of stages of moral development, whose work was built primarily on the early childhood theory of cognitive development pioneered by Swiss clinical psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg’s view holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages. What follows below is not an exhaustive exposition of Kohlberg’s work, but a highly simplified matrix designed to shed light on the subject of this post: the moral dilemmas threatening Western values in our neo-Marxist era.

What struck me immediately is Kohlberg’s assertion that “girls” typically do not advance beyond Stage 3, once they establish group identity and mutual caring for friends, family and their in-group tribal affiliations. He also asserts that most members of society remain at Stage 4, a deontic state (of or relating to duty and obligation as ethical concepts), and never consider abstract principles that undergird the laws, dictums and conventions of their respective social group. This differentiation between most women at Stage 3 and most men at Stage 4 correlates perfectly with the sordid state that now exists as a result of a half century of feminist dystopian dismemberment of equity in law.

This is most prominently manifest in the wide disparity between incarceration rates for men and women. Women are simply not arrested, charged and convicted for a veritable epidemic of false rape claims, for example, variously estimated at between forty and fifty percent of all such cases (real studies, that is, like the FBI and the CDC—not the ridiculous ideological feminist claims that women never lie about sexual assault!). Even when women are convicted of crimes, sentencing is more lenient and time served is sixty percent less by some estimates. Incredulously, a feminist law professor in—you guessed it—Canada, Elizabeth Sheehy, has been advocating for a change in Canadian law that a mere claim of domestic violence justifies homicide of the accused in “self-defense”, without evidence or legal consequence, merely the definition of the “victim” as “battered”. And please don’t confuse ideological purity with the reality that domestic violence has been shown to be gender symmetrical.

These revelations also dovetail perfectly with my own life experience. In my Sons of Feminism posts written on this blog a year ago, I made the observation that morality is conditional among women, dependent on whether a particular outcome satisfies their expectations. In the common lingo, people are said to have integrity, but I believe this to be misleading. When men are said to have integrity it is a state of being; when woman are said to have integrity, it is actually about having, like a cheap trinket that can be casually discarded. I made these observations in the context of rules that suddenly changed dramatically and arbitrarily the moment the knot was tied in matrimony. Since I foolishly and quixotically tilted at that proverbial windmill three times in my long and active sexual life, I know whereof I speak.

I’ll make one last point on this subject, for the moment at least. One may recognize in the matrix above that social justice warriors imagine themselves to be at Stage 6, where societal laws must meet the test of justice to be considered valid. But this only applies to highly evolved “moral exemplars”, as Kohlberg described them, such as Martin Luther King, not the intellectual lightweights being minted at our centers of indoctrination by Marxist professors of the Frankfurt School, a close cousin to purveyors of feminist Holy Scripture. These SJWs actually occupy Stage 2: feeble-minded moral relativism and a paucity of social, ethnic and religious cohesion, most apparent in the identity politics of the Regressive Left. As the ignorant rampage through the streets parroting the talking points of Luciferian adult diaper miscreants such as George Soros, we are reminded of both the Hitler Youth of the 1930s and Mao’s Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. Both movements were essentially regressive and incredibly destructive, marshaling the highly suggestible sensibilities of the immature. It appears terrible ideas rear their ugly heads rhythmically and inexorably throughout history.

 

Feminism, MGTOW

MGTOW Self Actualization

Leave a comment

The Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement has gained momentum in the West since the turn of the millennium for two principal reasons: The first of these and the main driver fueling the movement has been a steady degradation in the quality of life for men promulgated by the incessant demands of nth-wave feminism (whatever number it’s on these days); and second, the enabling technology of the internet has facilitated collaboration as has no other phenomenon in human history, granting men a forum to discover, share and celebrate the commonality of their escape from a culture that is dedicated to punishing all things masculine.

My own identification with the MGTOW community is coming up on twenty-eight years. Red pill rage that consumed me for the first decade dissipated a long time ago. By studiously avoiding marriage and long-term relationships leading to cohabitation, I’ve immunized myself against most of the excesses—excepting ruinous levels of taxation—of the feminist pandemic. For me, imbalances in law have become so egregious there is simply no plausible scenario—no woman so beautiful, intelligent or desirable—worth the significant downside risks imposed by the current social disorder and its execratory legal landscape. Some have argued that feminism has descended to its nadir, but I don’t see that. Its unholy alliance with the Marxist Regressive Left practically guarantees further decline into ideological extremism and authoritarianism. Even if the low point has been magically reached, the corruption of the West’s institutions by the Left will take decades to unwind—if it can be achieved peacefully at all. I would argue that extracting unearned entitlements from a voting majority to effect any real change is virtually impossible, except in conditions of societal collapse.

Many fellow MGTOW at all levels of their post-traumatic journey of discovery and enlightenment have become effective spokesmen and therapists for newly-minted red pill escapees in the process of reassembling their lives. Although admittedly still a recovering romantic that occasionally falls off the wagon, over these many years I’ve thankfully attained a measure of balance and equanimity, effectively a peace dividend fostering the potential to reveal a pathway to one’s personal actualization. What I and many other men have come to realize is that MGTOW’s ultimate prize is the enhanced freedom that accrues from a life pursuing one’s own interests, husbanding one’s own resources and making decisions for one’s own future. Although there’s no longer any such thing in this era of 24/7 surveillance as true freedom, it’s possible to come much closer to that ideal once the physical and psychological tethers binding one to degenerative societal expectations of male servitude have been severed.

This brings me to the question as to what constitutes self-actualization for MGTOW. Given that I successfully navigated the five stages of grief almost two decades ago, where has my journey taken me? From my perspective, the clearest exposition of this question was put forth several years ago by an Australian MGTOW philosopher named Colttaine (Australia seems to be rife with runaways from the plantation). He looked at the different ways men and women prioritize needs in relation to Abraham Maslow’s pyramidal hierarchy. The first four levels of the Maslow pyramid are categorized as deficiency needs (physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem), and Colttaine makes a convincing case that these needs are manifested differently by men and women. I’ll include a link to his video at the end of this post, but I won’t repeat his entire analysis here, except to amplify his postulates regarding self-actualization.

When women have surmounted deficiency needs and are in self-actualization, they tend to create recursive closed-loop systems to augment the dominance of the sisterhood. Examples include VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), which ignores the gender symmetry of domestic violence; the willful dismissal of male historians, philosophers and intellectuals to foist a concept of patriarchy theory; the disemboweling of legitimate biological science to spin gender construct nonsense; and, founding of organizations such as Emily’s List—prioritizing women’s health care, “equal” pay, paid leave for monthly menstruation discomfort, pro-choice feticide, election of “progressive” politicians, and similar causes. It’s not that remarkable things aren’t achieved, it’s that these achievements only benefit their true agenda of female supremacy.

On both the Left and the Right, blue pill men carry water for this recursive process. White knights and manginas grant special recognition to women by enabling victimization tropes; traditional conservatives similarly elevate women to goddess pedestals because they’re ‘ladies’.  These behaviors reinforce societal delusions regarding both the hypoagency of women and the hyperagency of men. If the reader hasn’t encountered these concepts, the simplest way to explain them is in reference to the exploits of 1930s bank robbers Bonnie and Clyde. Although the real-life Bonnie was a violent psychopath, her hypoagency exonerates her from any responsibility for their joint actions. Conversely, Clyde, with hyperagency, bears her blame as well as his own.

When men achieve self-actualization, they are merely said to have agency. What results among exceptional individuals includes scientific discovery (thermodynamics, the calculus, quantum physics, relativity); exploration (land, sea, undersea, air, space); technology (the internal combustion engine, the electrical grid, computers, the internet, smart phones); and  countless other achievements that tend to benefit all of humankind. I suspect altruism has little if anything to do with their motivation. There’s simply a joy of creation pursued for its own sense of accomplishment. If success follows, wonderful. Many men may toil for a lifetime, achieving great things, but are only recognized posthumously, if at all. Their personal sense of satisfaction during their productive years is nevertheless undiminished.

Of course there are women among this exalted community, whether in science, medicine, the arts or in any other endeavor. As the saying goes however, it’s the exception that proves the rule.

It follows that only a few men who transcend deficiency needs to become self actualized will ascend to greatness, but this is entirely beside the point for those that simply wish to be left alone to pursue whatever passions motivate them. They may aspire to become an accomplished fly fisherman, or to rebuild a classic automobile. These are all valid pursuits if they facilitate true agency. At the end of the day, it’s the freedom to pursue these dreams that is truly rewarding. MGTOW merely have to step off the vitality-sucking hamster wheel of societal expectations to experience the exhilaration inherent in a universe of opportunity that has always existed in plain sight.

 

 

 

 

 

Feminism, Globalism

Metamorphosis

Leave a comment

This will likely be my last post dealing with feminism as a primary subject. Events of the last six months, as well as continuing research into the implications of World events has taught me that, despite the virulence and toxicity of gender relations in combination with concomitant distortions in law and social contract, pitting the sexes against one another is a calculated distraction from a far larger, more ominous disease vector, a social pandemic threatening to engulf the planet in a series of twenty-first century conflicts that will render the twentieth century’s global wars benign by comparison.

Besides, picking on feminists these days is like shooting fish in a barrel. They have marginalized themselves so completely that they are losing the very constituency that grants them legitimacy and a steady stream of acolytes. When glorification of the menstrual cycle becomes a meme of the recent Women’s March, the end is thankfully nigh. A growing chorus of women is increasingly rejecting the feminist canon, leaving the feeble-minded fools that remain to obsess about “mansplaining”, “manspreading” and other equally moronic tempests-in-a-teapot. There is even one deranged feminist at the University of Arizona at Tucson claiming to be ridding the World of “Newtonian oppression” by redefining quantum physics in intersectional terms. Don’t even ask! Its theory is as vacuous as it sounds and its manifesto is unreadable. Laughably, it does not even reference Max Planck, the actual progenitor of quantum physics.

Insofar as the Holy Scripture of feminism is impervious to logic, scholarly exegesis can be left to future historians—or perhaps comedians—to ponder its bottomless treasure trove of risible incongruities. On its current entropic course, it can safely be left to gradually decline into disorder and wither on the vine as the cultural Zeitgeist mutates through another quite unexpected metamorphosis. An incipient shift away from toddler rule may not be enough to starve the feminist tumor into remission, but gathering storms will drown out the bleatings of the crybullies as they’re shunted aside by the coming conflagration.

The recent unexpected ascension of the “deplorables” to the seat of power in the United States follows closely on the heels of the equally unimaginable Brexit, opening salvos of an explosive paradigm shift—a deconstruction promising to unravel the New World Order’s (NWO’s) carefully scripted agenda, a program of creeping global hegemony by self-anointed ‘nobility’ intended to strip individual nation states of their agency and autonomy. The resulting balkanization facilitates coordinated manipulation by corporatized oligarchies to loot the planet for the benefit of the few at the apex of the pyramid. Key strategies include a program of “divide and conquer”, by promoting and funding a plethora of adversarial identity politics, including of course feminism, the mother of all identity politics; open borders to effect dilution of cultural homogeneity, providing a reliable welfare-dependent voting block for the perpetuation of state control; promotion of immensely profitable manufactured wars to achieve the chaos necessary for the dispersal of populations through economic migration and refugee crises; wars on non-issues like drugs to marginalize target populations and feed the prison industrial complex; inculcation of fear and insecurity in the general population by constantly engineering “false flag” operations, then dismantling constitutional protections against surveillance and control; and others too numerous to encapsulate in one paragraph.

Despite ceaseless manipulation of public opinion, outright falsifications and fabrications of foreign influence in the 2016 presidential election, legions of rioters and saboteurs funded by Soros-backed non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other CIA front groups, descent into perdition given the brazen assassination of political opponents; and, even with the successful criminal disenfranchisement of Democrat Party supporters’ actual chosen candidate, Bernie Sanders, the NWO was unable to engineer a victory for their anointed candidate—the tired, sickly, uninspiring, murderous and unimaginably corrupt hack-in-a-pantsuit, whose only claim to the presidency appears to be entitlement accruing to her pudenda.

For the first time in the hundred-plus years this program of dismantlement has been evolving, the Internet has finally provided an alternative platform for the widespread and apparently unstoppable dissemination of the dark truths underlying the lying — the unceasing lies and half-lies permeating virtually every pore of the so-called Deep State. Unsurprisingly, pushback by NWO parasites is vicious and unrelenting, dispatching mainstream media’s corrupt corporate overlords and their minion armies of compliant hacks. They’re employing every dirty trick in the Saul Alinsky playbook — essentially the de facto instruction manual for the violent Regressive Left.

But it won’t work, not this time. This genie is not going back in the bottle. The damage wrought in the last forty years or so may be irreversible, particularly in Europe, where Western civilization is on the verge of being subsumed by low-IQ populations of culturally inferior economic migrants. It may also be irreversible in the commonwealth countries of the Anglosphere, including the United Kingdom, where, pursuant to the rise of the welfare state, women have infiltrated the reigns of economic and political power, destroying social cohesion in the process. In the United States, although most college campuses have become a radicalized archipelago of suppressed speech, ideological drivel and worthless educations, and many of the so-called sanctuary cities are harboring criminals without even a pretense of exercising the rule of law, the First and Second Amendments are still treasured in the general population. The Deep State may be surveilling everyone and picking off vulnerable outliers that dare to speak truth to power, but we’re on to them now. As many realized during the fall of the Soviet Union, there are so many of us and so few of them, why should we fear?

Global conflict that promises to eclipse the bloodletting of the twentieth century is the unavoidable legacy attending the unleashing of these forces. In the most optimistic scenario, the intellectually inferior at the bottom of the pyramid will be defeated in war; the self-aggrandizing parasites at the top of the pyramid will be hunted down and eviscerated. We know from history however that outcomes are likely to be much worse. Despite inevitable pain, suffering and disruption preceding this renaissance, and even if I won’t be able to participate directly, I hope to remain sentient long enough to witness at least the opening salvos of this metamorphosis.

Feminism, MGTOW

Oblivious

Leave a comment

In January of 2017, the Spanish government appointed senator Edelmira Barreira as Minister of Sex with the objective of encouraging Spaniards to produce more babies to boost the country’s ‘catastrophically’ falling birth rate. Since 2008, the number of births has plunged by 18 percent. Spain has one of the lowest fertility rates in the developed world, with women between the ages of 18 and 49 having an average of 1.3 children in 2015, lower even than the EU’s already low birth rate of 1.58, and well below the replacement rate of 2.2. Also in 2015, Spain experienced its first year in decades in which deaths outnumbered births. As a result, the country is on the brink of a population crisis. Low fertility rates bode ill for the future of a society that depends on a steady influx of young productive and well-paid workers to keep the economy healthy by providing income and sales tax revenues. Spain’s education ministry said the declining birth rate “aggravates other economic imbalances and generates important impacts in the welfare state”.

Barreira, a demographics expert, is tasked with drawing up a national strategy to tackle this looming demographic disaster. Experts are crawling out of the woodwork to offer explanations. The Institute for Family Policies blames the impact of the economic crisis for why Spanish women on average wait until the age of 32 to have their first child—the oldest in Europe. Others are pointing to long working hours and going to bed after midnight as being partly to blame for the nation’s sex famine. There is general recognition that declining birth rates in industrialized nations are due to women being more involved in the workplace, waiting to have children later in life, the increased cost of raising a child, and other similar factors. However, many of the same issues affect other developed economies in the West. So why is Spain’s fertility rate so much lower?

Predictably, in Western countries where every word uttered in public and committed to print is processed through the politically correct propaganda filter of the gynocracy, the feminist-dominated mainstream media has not voiced what every Spaniard already knows. Perform an online search of MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) in Spain, and thousands of links come up implicating a single phenomenon: The “Organic Act on Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence” (LIGV), passed in 2004 by the Socialist government of José Luis Zapatero.

It’s important to make a distinction here unique to Spanish law. Domestic violence is defined as violence by women against men, but these acts are considered misdemeanors, requiring that a woman virtually commit murder before it is even prosecuted as a crime. Conversely, gender violence under Spanish law is defined as violence committed solely by men against women, and is considered a crime. Despite incontrovertible evidence that gender violence is symmetrical—that by some accounts Spanish women are more violent than men—the LIGV was passed under the rubric of ‘equality’ for women, and grants special protections to women, marshalling the resources and coercion of the state.

When the law provides a privileged class with legal immunity and incentives to lie, the result is always exploitation and rampant corruption. As concerns men accused by women, the law dispenses with the bothersome presumption of innocence enshrined in Western legal doctrine for a thousand years. The accused is automatically arrested and jailed for up to 72 hours, during which time the police conduct no investigation. He is then hauled before a special tribunal without due process rights, and found guilty by default in the vast majority of cases. As Joseph Stalin infamously said, “Bring me the accused and I’ll invent the crime”.

The LIGV resulted in an epidemic of false allegations against innocent men. Four hundred complaints are filed daily, ninety percent of which are false, according to Barcelona Judge Maria Sanahuja. She went on to say:

“The gender violence law is a disgusting violation of human rights in Spain. It is a madness that creates abuse and destroys the burden of proof. We are abusing of thousands of children, thousands of fathers, thousands of men, thousands of grandfathers.”

She added that “Even men are human”, a telling qualifier which apparently needed to be made in the toxic environment of Spain’s feminist reign of terror. She paid heavily for that comment as the country’s feminists attacked her viciously, disparaging her to this day. And Judge Francisco Serrano Castro added:

“[Having] a penal code with different laws for different categories of persons existed in 20th century Europe only under Nazism and Stalinism. …Illegal detentions, suicides of men—this is genocide. Society does not realize that human rights are being violated. I fight against violence, but I also fight against what some sectors are doing to criminalize family and men.”

This “intimate partner violence” law casts a wide net. Picture this: A man meets a woman. After a few months he invites her to live with him in his house. At her whim, she reports an incident of gender violence to the police. Whether or not any such thing occurred, he is arrested, imprisoned, evicted from his own house if she chooses to continue to live there, and forced to fend for himself, living on the streets if necessary. If the woman elects to press charges for gender violence, she can receive financial assistance from the state for up to eleven months or until the case is adjudicated. After eleven months, she can file another complaint and repeat the cycle of abuse, basically stealing from the state as well as dispossessing the man ad nauseam. Accused men can lose custody of their children. Paternal grandparents can be excluded from participating in their grandchildren’s lives. Accused men frequently lose their jobs, their reputations are sullied and they are vilified on social media. In the unlikely event men prevail in their legal struggle, they are still placed on a sex offender list, because by law men are guilty; the state merely failed to find sufficient evidence for a conviction. Unsurprisingly, the suicide rate among men has skyrocketed.

Within a few years, imbalances became so grotesque that Socialist governments in state after state (Spain is a federation) fell to the Right in regional elections. These regional governments passed joint custody laws, despite concerted resistance from the central government in Madrid. Finally, national elections in 2011 swept the Socialists from office in the largest electoral debacle in Spanish history. A lawsuit was filed by a men’s rights organization in the Hague to prosecute the Zapatero regime for “genocide crimes, crimes against humanity with inhuman and degrading treatment of citizens”,  and, “…against more than one million citizens persecuted for being male”, relating to the economic and social disaster spawned by the LIGV. It will be a long process. As of this writing, the case has not been forwarded to the International Criminal Court.

Has the bloodletting been stanched? Not quite. The Socialists may have lost the national election, and regional governments are keeping the worst abuses of the LIGV temporarily at bay, but the Left still has enough seats in Parliament to block any attempt to repeal the law altogether. Moreover, the Left controls the Spanish Constitutional Court, which found their misandric law to be constitutional, rendering repeal even more difficult. And, as everywhere in the West, the mainstream media is controlled by feminists, who routinely crush anyone exposing their egregious lies and naked propaganda. The “gender violence” law may be weakened, but it still exercises an asphyxiating miasma over the lives of Spanish men.

Notice: Men will be humiliated and degraded with increasing severity until the birth rate improves.

What to do when your laws have included only intimate partnerships to feed the social and financial castration of men? Hmm. Enlarge the pool of men that can be targeted, of course! Render women so intrinsically undesirable that even testosterone-addled men will have nothing to do with them. This will ensure that the powerful hormonal imperatives that normally enjoin men to think with their ‘little heads’, inducing them to supersede their enlightened self-interest, will be overwhelmed by sheer disgust. To achieve that objective, the LIGV will become even more punitive in 2017. It will be broadened in scope to include any action in any context by any man towards any woman, including minors, that any woman (or now, girl), declares to be gender violence. Brilliant idea!

I suspect there are too few prisons in Spain to accommodate the legions of innocent men and boys that will soon be incarcerated. If this hasn’t taken root already, no Spaniard in his right mind will associate with women in such a police state, to say nothing of the effect this will ultimately have on male employers’ willingness to hire women, a predictable effect already at epidemic levels in Israel, a country with similarly insane one-sided gender laws.

I have noticed that feminist ideology is utterly impervious to logic. Edelmira Barreira appears to be incapable of comprehending—or is perhaps willfully ignoring—the patently obvious. Feminist scripture condemns her to remain oblivious to the virtual tsunami of countervailing evidence challenging its ideology. But of course this is true of any ideology. Its adherents cannot tolerate apostasy; it could presage the collapse of their entire house of cards.

In this milieu, one can comfortably predict that the Spanish birth rate will continue to plummet. Even if the LIGV and its attendant system of kangaroo courts were repealed today (not likely with the bureaucracy that’s now entrenched guaranteeing its continuity), it would be decades before men trusted women again. Ironically, feminists have planted the seeds of their own demographic destruction, which will come home to roost when there won’t be enough men and their taxes to underwrite the entitlements women have come to demand from society. Fundamentally, feminism is a fiction whereby a majority of women seeks to harness and exploit the largesse of the state—until parasitism destroys the host, that is.

Even those of us in the MGTOW community can’t avoid the depredations of the welfare society, its ruinous taxation and the evisceration of our personal sovereignty; however, we are refusing to prostrate ourselves before the icon of the golden vagina by walking away in ever greater numbers. As the rapid growth of MGTOW in Spain is demonstrating daily, men can and will say no to enslavement.

Feminism, MGTOW

Happy Saint Vagina Day

Leave a comment

Two-thirds of the American population participates in this popular holiday. Two hundred and twenty million roses are grown, thirty-five million heart-shaped boxes of chocolates are manufactured, jewelry valued at $4 billion annually is gifted, and uncounted overpriced romantic dinners are consumed in overbooked restaurants, for an average annual outlay of twenty billion dollars ($130 per person per year). Small wonder it’s considered a major consumer holiday.

Please, who are we kidding? Let me rephrase this. Men send bouquets of roses, give chocolates in heart-shaped boxes, fork over for jewelry and are shamed into booking extortionate romantic dinners. Once apostates like me are discounted, the average outlay per man balloons to stratospheric levels. If women contribute anything, they treat themselves to a hairdressing appointment and a visit to the spa, spring for new dresses, shoes, hose, perfume, cosmetics and the like. I would hazard a lot of these expenditures end up borne on the backs of men as well. So for the most part it’s the men who provide and the women who consume—another ominous example of the patriarchy tragically oppressing women.

As for the actual namesake, very little is known about the Roman priest named Valentinus who was martyred on February 14, 273, during the reign of Claudius Gothicus, for aiding Christians during a time the nascent faith was persecuted in the Roman Empire. The feast of Saint Valentine on February 14th was first established in 496 by Pope Gelasius I to commemorate all those “…whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God”. Enough confusion surrounds the true identity of Valentinus that the Catholic Church discontinued liturgical veneration of him in 1969, though his name remains on its list of officially recognized saints. His patronage includes love, affianced couples, happy marriages, beekeepers, fainting, epilepsy and plague. Having little familiarity with how patronage decisions are derived during beatification, I’m tempted to relate the first three with the last three as events on a continuum, but as to how beekeeping fits in remains a mystery.

The veneration of the vagina through the promotion of purity and chastity was a concoction of the early Christian church. How else to justify Joseph of Nazareth’s cuckolding by God, who, apparently without permission, chose Mary’s womb to bear his son, thereby invoking an incongruity known as the ‘immaculate’ conception. By this clever sleight of hand, men were indoctrinated with a higher ideal of woman, and women in turn became possessed (or obsessed, to the cynically-minded) with a mystical sense of their own divinity, a plague that has become amplified to insufferability in modern feminism. One need only look to the latest Grammy Awards spectacle of Beyonce’s self aggrandizement as incontrovertible evidence.

All that is ethereal and spiritual in modern love’s expression traces its roots to the 12th century European intersection of Arabic practices of female worship and aristocratic courting trends. This cultural phenomenon found imperial patronage in Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie de Champagne, who together promoted a redefinition of chivalry—a military code of behavior— into a notion of servicing ladies of the court. Such courtly love found expression through hired minstrels, playwrights, romance writers and troubadours, spreading like a virus throughout the Middle Ages. Before long, such gynocentric practices led to sexual feudalism, as attested by female writers of the time, describing how even women of lower socioeconomic classes were treated as superiors by their men, who acted as servants or beasts of burden, sacrificing health and vitality to provide for them and their offspring. Some patriarchy, eh?

The medieval English poet Geoffrey Chaucer can justly be vilified for popularizing the fiction linking Valentinus to the cultural evolution of courtly love. As such he has rightly earned recognition in the pantheon of public relations superstars, countered however by the eternal resentment of men harnessed to its commercial exploitation. No record exists of romantic celebrations on February 14th prior to a poem Chaucer wrote around 1375. In his work “Parliament of Foules”, he links the expression of courtly love with the celebration of Saint Valentine’s feast day, an association that had no historical antecedent until his poem received widespread attention.

Once the association of Valentine’s Day with love and romance took root, it grew slowly but relentlessly. The first Valentine greetings appeared in the fifteenth century. By the seventeenth century, people in Great Britain had begun a tradition of exchanging Valentine’s Day cards or letters and the practice soon spread to other outposts of the Anglosphere. The first mass-produced cards emerged in the United States during the 1840s, coincident with universally available mail service. Valentine’s Day thereafter exploded in popularity to become the consumer holiday we know today.

Within three months of emigrating from Austria to Canada as a boy of eight, I was introduced to my first Valentine’s Day in grade school. The experience of being dropped into a foreign culture was something of a shock, having to learn a new language and navigating the customs of our adopted home, but I was fascinated by the cultural dynamics of love and romance from a child’s perspective. As a newbie in the world of my peers, and a dreaded Nah-zee to boot (the way Winston Churchill—and by emulation—all Canadians pronounced it), I was more or less ignored, but since I was not burdened with expectations, I was free to observe. My takeaway from that first Valentine’s Day was the apparent natural law of the love triangle. The air was redolent with emotional disappointment. No one got what they wanted. The girls wanted certain boys; the boys wanted other girls. More than sixty years and three failed marriages later, not much has changed.

Thankfully, as a Man Going My Own Way (MGTOW) for more than twenty-seven years, I’m decades past the point of being burdened with expectations. The very prospect of marriage or long-term relationships, particularly those leading to cohabitation, are anathema to me. I’m blessed with peace and equanimity, the love and respect of many friends of both biological genders, and many creative passions to satisfy my iconoclastic curiosity. Veneration of the vagina, while still firmly ingrained in my psyche and frequently activated in my hormones, no longer rules my life.

 

Feminism, Globalism

Forward to the Past

Leave a comment

In 215 BCE, at the height of the Roman Republic’s Second Punic War against Hannibal Barca, the Oppian Law (Lex Oppia) was enacted to restrict the luxury and extravagance of women in order to save money for the public treasury. The law specified that no woman could own more than a half ounce of gold, nor wear a garment with several colors, nor drive a carriage with horses closer than a mile to the city limits of Rome except to attend public celebrations of religious rites.

Twenty years later, after Hannibal’s defeat, Rome was awash with Carthaginian wealth, and a proposal was championed by several tribunes and opposed by several others to repeal the Oppian Law. This conflict spawned far more interest than the most important affairs of state. Middle-aged Roman women crowded the streets, blocked access to the forum, and intercepted their approaching husbands, demanding to restore the ancient prerogatives of Roman matrons. Ultimately, the dissenting tribunes withdrew their opposition and the Oppian Law was repealed by a vote of all tribes. Women went in procession through the streets and the forum, resplendent in their now legitimized finery.

Only Cato the Elder, by then a junior consul, and with a reputation for strict public morality, maintained a severe and determined opposition. To underscore his views, he made a characteristically impolite speech, paraphrased here for clarity:

“Woman is a violent and uncontrollable animal… If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters… All mankind rules its women, and we rule all mankind, yet our women rule us.”

Cato continued to exercise his considerable influence during his elevation to censor between 184 BCE and his death in 149 BCE, to preserve Rome’s ancestral customs and combat “degenerate” Hellenistic influences, most notably with the passage of the Voconian Law (lex Voconia) in 169 BCE, intended in part to limit the accumulation of an undue proportion of wealth in the hands of women.

Although gynocentrism—domination by or emphasis on feminine interests or a feminine point of view—strongly influenced Roman culture, the society remained dedicated to the concept of paterfamilias, or “father of the family”. The oldest male, always a Roman citizen, held legal privilege over the property of the familia, and varying levels of authority over his dependents, including the custody of children in divorce. Roman women had a limited form of citizenship. Though held in high regard, they were not allowed to vote or stand for public office. Women had the right to own property, to engage in business, and to obtain a divorce; which, toward the end of the first century BCE, became what would today be classified as a no-fault system. At the dissolution of a marriage, women could take their own property, including their dowry, with them. The concept of alimony would have been met with incredulity. Throughout the emancipation of women and concomitant social liberalization, equity in law between the sexes was held sacrosanct.

Contrast this with the rolling disaster of modern feminism. Most Western nations are in decline, owing largely to granting women universal suffrage, leading inevitably to grotesque distortions in law and social contract. We have abdicated governance to petulant children, extracting taxes from men, who still carry the burden of responsibility for maintaining society, to underwrite the delusions of women and their pseudoscientific scripture. Like all dogma, its basic tenets cannot be challenged by rational argument without churlish epithets hurled in response. Everything espoused by feminism has devolved into abject failure, and although a crescendo of voices is growing in opposition and a rising tide of men continues to walk away, it’s already too late to save Western society. The women’s vote will never be repealed; the Gordian knot will never be untied.

It’s easy to blame women, but this is like blaming a toddler for throwing a tantrum. There is a far more sinister agenda at work here. Embedded in the strategy to balkanize society in order to promote neo-feudalism, and break down the coherence and protections that nation states afford its citizens, the globalist aristocracy has enlisted the most effective phalanx of useful idiots in human history. By feminizing and delegitimizing masculinity, the one force sufficiently aware and competent to push back is effectively neutered. Women’s propensity to form alliances, seek security in the accumulation of wealth and wrap themselves in the embrace of corrupted legal protections, have squandered centuries of blood struggles by men that enshrined constitutional guarantees and the rights and privileges that attend them. They tolerate the intrusion of the deep state willingly in part because they also gleefully employ the tools and techniques of 24/7 surveillance to control men. To achieve their pyrrhic victories, they have become willing patsies to their financial and corporatist masters, taking satisfaction in the knowledge that they are serfs endowed with a marginally more exalted stature than the legions of semi-conscious male drones who serve them.

Several posts ago, I made the statement that I don’t care if this terminally ill society is flushed down the metaphorical toilet of a quasi-Marxist theocracy. Until a total collapse ensues, such as was witnessed during the French Revolution, there can be no Maximilian Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety to excise malignancies festering on the corpus of humanity over many decades, if not centuries. Such radical surgery is necessary to eviscerate the entire sociopathic financial and corporatist aristocracy along with its phony system of fiat currencies, and expose its minions in the dark recesses of the deep state to the light of public censure.

 

Feminism

REDЯUM REDЯUM

Leave a comment

I learned that Lena Dunham, the American writer, producer and director, feels despondent for having been left out of the Roe v. Wade party because she has not had an opportunity to rip a life from her womb. The news item did not specify how this ‘injustice of miscarriage’ occurred. Perhaps she failed to sabotage her birth control when the opportunity for implantation of a zygote presented itself. Thus, one has to sympathize with the unfortunate Ms. Dunham’s bad luck that prevented her exercise of this Supreme Court-given right to terminate life. Her sorrowful plight is such a tragic tale, I feel compelled to add my voice to the chorus. I have, after all, quite a story to tell in my own right.

I was conceived in an illicit affair while my mother’s husband was off at the front during World War II, at a time when legal abortions were not available. My mother tried to kill me in utero to conceal her dalliance, but failed. I know this only because she assaulted me with this revelation dozens of times during my upbringing, whenever she flew into an uncontrollable rage in response to my admittedly insolent behavior. I didn’t know what aborting a fetus looked like until I saw a video of an ultrasound showing a woman’s womb during such a procedure. The instrument of dispatch was a surgical scissors-like instrument. As it approached the fetus, which appeared to be one or two inches in length, the fetus recoiled, trying to escape in a desperate attempt to preserve life, but was efficiently dismembered and removed from the womb in pieces. You would be wrong in assuming I feel sanguine about this—I was nauseous for days as I recalled the haunting sequence. It certainly looked to my eyes as though the fetus experienced pain—to say nothing of terror.

So I survived attempted feticide, but was born three weeks past term. As a result, further complications presented in childbirth. Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) occurs when a newborn breathes a mixture of meconium and amniotic fluid into the lungs around the time of delivery. A leading cause of severe illness and death in the newborn, MAS typically occurs when the fetus is stressed during labor. For the first few days, I refused my mother’s teat, causing further consternation. Ultimately, I became a strong and healthy baby, but these traumas in utero and childbirth were to leave a lifelong telltale.

Throughout my entire life, from my first memory to this day, I’ve experienced traumatic nightmares. These manifested as sleepwalking up until my forties—if tearing through the house as an adrenaline-fueled projectile converting furniture to matchwood can be characterized as ‘walking’. I’ve never remembered the sound of the screams that announced these dreams, but all who had the misfortune to experience these episodes (family, wives, girlfriends) described them as paralyzing—even heart-stopping. The nightmares have taken varying forms over the years, such as giant metal probes trying to kill me, lying at the bottom of a pool of water unable to move, or teetering above an abyss of darkness and dread. In the dreams, I have the certain ‘knowledge’ that I have just died. After ‘coming to’, several second elapse before I realize I am still alive and in a familiar place. Occasionally, I still rearrange items in my bedroom or find myself in another part of my house, although without the destruction of bygone years. Recently, I had a disturbing variant that saw me in a giant organic tube. In one shriveled branch off the main tube lay a dead fetus, which I ‘knew’ was me. In these Schrödinger mists, like the cat in his thought experiment, I’ve lived the visceral experience of being dead and alive at the same time. These dream events have become less overtly life-threatening, but I suspect they will haunt me for the rest of my days.

My mother went on to self-administer six more abortions, until, in her words, she no longer allowed my stepfather to share her bed, enforcing this prohibition with a kitchen knife on her nightstand. Shortly after her last such termination, she had her uterus surgically removed because of medical complications. Unlike the many other intimate details of her life that no child needs to hear, she chose not to share the reasons for this with me. I’ve often mused about my would-be siblings, wondering if the metaphysical concept that all possibilities are realized in alternate realities may manifest in my dream world.

Despite all this, I still support a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy responsibly, if for no other reason than that it can be performed in a hospital environment under rigorous medical supervision. Before Roe v. Wade, abortions were pursued in any case by women for various personal reasons. However, they were frequently performed in back alleys, or with coat hangers and knitting needles, often in unsanitary conditions and at great risk to the mother’s health. Further, the certain death of the fetus would prevent the chain of psychological trauma that I’ve experienced, notwithstanding that some would argue I’ve lived a worthy life despite my genesis. Would I prefer an unwanted child be brought to term and put up for adoption? Of course! Adoptees are personally known to me who contribute to the common weal orders-of-magnitude above their station and circumstance. Carrying to term would however force women to assume responsibility for their decisions in an era where any imposition on a woman’s convenience is decried as oppression of the patriarchy. Still, what I strenuously object to is the callous dispatch of life as a feminist rite of passage.

To facilitate Ms. Dunham’s initiation however, I offer a modest proposal: I suggest designing a merit badge that can be sewn on her tunic, similar to those earned by Scouts for their accomplishments. In blood-red lettering at the top of the badge would be the word REDЯUM, referencing the Stanly Kubrick film classic, The Shining. An elegantly designed dismembered fetus would be placed below with a superimposed two-digit number. This would facilitate a status hierarchy for up to ninety-nine such terminations, recognizing that most women would not be fertile for a long enough period, or their uteruses would not survive more than this number of surgical interventions. Might I suggest the numbers one through five could denote Novice status; six through ten Mistress status; and, any number above ten that of Divine Goddess. In this way, every time she looks in the mirror, Ms. Dunham, or any aspiring acolyte, could proudly admire her ascension to the hallowed ranks of the sisterhood.

Epilogue

Am I being unfair to Lena Dunham? I don’t think so. In this celebrity-drenched culture, one who assumes this role, particularly those that seek such adulation, are essentially attention magnets. As such, they must accept that anything they utter in the public realm, particularly if moronic or ill-considered, will be broadcast to a wide audience, and will engender pushback. By all accounts, Ms. Dunham received a lot of negative press from articulate and powerful feminist sisters, and tried to walk it back in an abject Instagram apology. However, this misses the point that she blurted out what is likely true for her, and does or at least did feel entitled to an abortion. This is after all a women who bragged about sexually abusing her younger sister,  becoming a de facto apologist for pedophilia.

My final point is this: Among women in the West, abortion has devolved to become as blasé as getting a pedicure. If a pregnancy is unwanted or simply inconvenient, a nascent life is discarded as casually as a tampon. From a male perspective, I find it somewhat ironic that an equal number of female and male lives are thus eviscerated, and that this factoid is never examined or even mentioned in feminist babble. Pointing out that men perform the inseminating belies the reality that in culture and law, men have precisely zero reproductive rights, including that of participating in the decision to carry or abort; however, are enjoined in law to provide financial support until said child attains majority. This is true even in some circumstances where the child is biologically proven to be that of another man. For men, responsibility without concomitant authority is the special provenance of feminism. It should hardly be a mystery why men with independent minds and a healthy measure of self-respect are simply walking away.